JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted. This appeal arises out of an order dated 15th February, 2011 passed by the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench, dismissing S.A. (MD) No. SR 17828 of 2005 as barred by limitation.

2. The Plaintiffs-Respondents No. 1 to 5 filed O.S. No. 33 of 1985 for declaration of their title and recovery of possession of property comprising 110.62 acres of land underlying Survey Nos. 3056 to 3059 and 3060 of Ponmana Village in the District of Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu. The suit was contested by the Defendant but eventually decreed by the trial court in favour of the Plaintiffs. Aggrieved, the State preferred an appeal before the District Court at Kanyakumari which too failed and was dismissed by the said court. Second Appeal (MD) No. SR 17828 of 2005 was then preferred before the High Court of Madras which came to be transferred to the Madurai Bench of the High Court for hearing and disposal.

3. It is common ground that the appeal before the High Court was filed within the period of limitation prescribed for the same but on account of certain defects in the appeal memorandum and accompanying documents, the papers were returned to counsel for the Appellant-State for rectification and representation. The return of the papers was taken by counsel for the Appellant-State but the same appear to have been re-presented without doing the needful. That process it appears continued over a period of time resulting in a delay of 3412 days in the representation of the second appeal papers. An application for condonation of the delay was in the above backdrop filed before the High Court by the Appellant-State but the same was declined by the High Court in terms of the order impugned in this appeal. The High Court was of the view that there was no cogent or acceptable reason forthcoming from the application for condoning such an inordinate delay in the re-filing of the papers, after removal of the defects. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the said order, as mentioned earlier.

4. When the matter initially came up before us for preliminary hearing on 14th December, 2012, we had directed counsel for the Appellant-State to take instructions whether any enquiry had been conducted at any level by any authority to identify the persons responsible for the delay of 3412 days in re-filing of the appeal papers before the High Court and whether any action was taken or was proposed to be taken against the persons responsible for the same. An affidavit, pursuant to the said direction, was filed by one Mr. T. Ritto Cyriac, District Forest Officer, Kanniyakumari Division, Nagercoil, which upon consideration was found to be unsatisfactory by us. This Court noted that engagement of a counsel by the State Government did not necessarily mean that the litigant had proved his diligence in the matter especially when the litigant happened to be a resourceful party like the State Government. It was also observed that an enquiry, into the circumstances leading to an inordinate delay in the re-filing of the appeal papers, was called for especially when the property in-question comprised a large extent of 110.62 acres of land which according to the State was forest land sought to be falsely claimed by the Plaintiffs-Respondents. Such a huge and valuable piece of property ought to have engaged the attention of the authorities not only in the matter of protecting the same against any fake claim by any third party but also in the matter of pursuing the litigation before the higher courts in an appropriate manner and diligently. We had in that view directed Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Madras, to conduct an enquiry into the circumstances leading to the inordinate delay in re-filing of the appeal papers before the High Court and authorised the enquiry officer to examine the relevant records, summon witnesses and record their depositions.

5. The Registrar (Vigilance) has pursuant to the above direction not only conducted an enquiry but subm